Omnipotent is defined in part as having power or authority without limits IOW, almighty.

Seems to me that God has a few limits.

He cannot reproduce true.He cannot enjoy sex.He cannot reproduce without bestiality or cross species breeding.He can only reproduce half breed chimeras like Jesus.He could not create a heaven without Satan.He could not create Eden without evil in it.He cannot control wayward demons or devils. He cannot sin, although scripture says he does.He cannot live without needs like adoration, honour, obedience, love.He cannot accept a soul into heaven without us accepting Jesus and human sacrifice.He could not forgive sin without having Jesus sacrificed.Feel free to add to this list.

How then can Christians say that God omnipotent, all-powerful and without limits when he clearly has many?

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, My only point being, what happened previously has nothing whatsoever to do with the present situation.

Yes it does. That's a demonstrable fact as the evidence I linked and quoted shows???? Why do you think you can just wave it away with your opinion because it doesn't suit you and not offer any reason at all? You haven't even bothered to read it have you?

Dr, Sheldon, No, I have not read it because it cannot have any bearing on the present situation.

What has caused most of our present problems are man made and this cannot be said of the others.

Similar events may have occured to cause the demise of many forms of life by nature, however, mankind has so far used the gifts of God to the dertiment of the planet, to such an extent that it.s whole future is at risk, if you ignore the fact that God will not allow it.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, No, I have not read it because it cannot have any bearing on the present situation.

YOU were the one who introduced the article that contained that evidence into this thread? Now that I have read it and pointed out it does not in fact say what you claimed, it suddenly has no bearing quelle surprise, that's rather silly to put it mildly. You continually introduce claims on behalf of science which are false, then when they are refuted because they don't say what you claimed, you think you can just ignore this? The point is you claimed science was to blame for a mass extinction and that this was based on a new scientific claim.

1. You offered zero evidence when you were prompted of why science was to blame. 2. The article you cited did not in any way blame science. On the contrary....3. The article showed unequivocally that this type of mass extinction was not unique, and had in fact occurred several times throughout this planets history before there were any humans.

Perhaps if you tried to read articles properly, rather than skimming headlines you like, then you'd make these kind of mistakes less often, as for denying the evidence in the article after you used it to claim something it didn't say, well that speaks for itself.

Polyglide wrote:What has caused most of our present problems are man made and this cannot be said of the others.

Of course not as there were no humans around then, but you never said man made, you said it was mainly down to science, you have yet to evidence this at all.

Polyglide wrote:Similar events may have occured to cause the demise of many forms of life by nature, however, mankind has so far used the gifts of God to the dertiment of the planet, to such an extent that it.s whole future is at risk, if you ignore the fact that God will not allow it.

Genesis 1:28 "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Now if you can show me a single scientific paper, claim theory or hypothesis that advocates that then you might have some semblance of a point. Though I would point out that it's religion that is most to blame for population increase, by traditionally chaining women to their reproductive cycle, by demonizing birth control, and by passages such as the one above from Genesis, whereas science has offered through birth control our best chance to reverse this problem and save the planet. How is God not allowing it if it is happening? That makes no sense as it is demonstrably false. Of course if no god exists then then things occurring that the religious claim their omnipotent deity doesn't want or like would be easy to explain. There is no future according to your religion anyway, not according to revelation.

Polyglide wrote:Science is the main culprit.

No it's not, it's not to blame at all, as has been explained but which you prefer to tediously ignore and just endlessly repeat your claim. Science is just a mean to gain knowledge, the alternative is to live in ignorance, is that what you're advocating? How exactly will that help save the planet?

Religion is far more to blame for human population increase, they still in the 21st century make the asinine assertion that a piece of latex, or a pill to stop procreation resulting from intercourse, somehow offends a supernatural being with limitless intelligence and power. The idea is as absurd as it is damaging, and if the planet is destroyed it will be down to such theistic stupidity or to religious lunatics like IS getting their hands on some radioactive material and making a bomb, and nothing to do with science. Any more than a rock is to blame when someone uses it to batter some poor devil to death because they have fallen foul of some archaic and puritanical religious law.

Polyglide wrote:If someone creates anything that can be used in a manner that causes any problem whatsoever, even if wrongly used, is responsible for the outcome.

So you're claiming god is ultimately responsible for everything. If an omnipotent deity existed I'd agree, glad we're on the same page.

Science of course is just a method got seeking knowledge. So it cannot be culpable for how that knowledge is used by humans. Unlike an omnipotent omniscient deity which if it existed would by definition be culpable for everything.

Polyglide wrote: I have pointed out that many things can only have been created by scienece to cause distress and many deaths, chemical weapons, nuclear bombs, being just two.

They weren't created by science, they were created by men misusing science. As you've been told. You can't blame science for how men use it, anymore than you can blame a rock if someone uses it to stone someone to death.

Perhaps you think your god is guilty of murder for creating rocks? Unlike science which is itself in sentient your god is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent. It could both see the flaws in its creation and avoid their misuse, but does not.

Unless it doesn't exist of course. In which case the evidence all makes sense.

Dr, Sheldon,I know science is a means to gain knowledge of how God created things, I have explained this previously.

My problem with this claim is it presupposes a creator, also science deals and can only deal with the natural physical world, it can't and doesn't look for or at anything supernatural. Remember it must be falsifiable before science can even consider it.

Of course if religions make claims about the physical world that can be scientifically tested that's a different matter. Though these claims unfortunately turn out to be the opinion of one scientists or another based on their religious beliefs, rather than scientific opinion that has been properly scrutinised and validated, peer reviewed etc etc..This as I have said is a very strict rigid process, so it's no good telling me I'm obsessed with it as it is nothing to do with me, this is a simple fact.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, I could not agree more regarding what scientists do and concede that in many cases their findings are validated, this in no way compromises my belief.

I never suggested otherwise, my point was that claiming scientists have evidenced creationism is demonstrably false, as science can't study something which makes supernatural claims, this would violate a basic scientific principle called falsifiability.

Polyglide wrote:To explain the unknown, as scientist do does not mean they have the answer to the most important questions, the main one being the origin of all things.

It doesn't mean they can't answer it either.

Polyglide wrote: As we humans think, or as I think most people think, nothing comes about from nothing and all things will in the end be explainable no matter what.

In this context that would beg the question of where your deity came from? Since you don't know the answer it's illogical and contradictory to claim nothing can come from nothing then claim a deity did. The last part is a rather bizarre piece of hubris after your opener implied science might not to be able to do this. What reason have we to believe religion that has been proved wrong so many times in such a short space of time by scientific advancements will be able to explain something science can't? Indeed I'd have to wonder why the explanation wasn't right the first time in Genesis?

Dr, Sheldon, As humans are limited to thinking in a manner, in my opinion a very restricted manner, to only consider what mankind is capable of in terms of capabilities it limits their understanding that there may be a completely different and far more intelligent life form.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, As humans are limited to thinking in a manner, in my opinion a very restricted manner, to only consider what mankind is capable of in terms of capabilities it limits their understanding that there may be a completely different and far more intelligent life form.

How do you claim to know what the limitations of human thinking are? Of course the irony of your statement is that the method of empirical science has allowed us to acquire a previously unimagined store of knowledge.

The rest I'm afraid is no more than pure assumption, though it has obviously comforted humans throughout their existence to believe that there is some sort of guiding intelligence behind events, hardly surprising given the suffering both physical and emotional that most humans would have suffered during their incredibly short lives. This of course is my point, as rational thinking and logic, and modern science has produced a quality of life only a very small number of the humans who've ever existed can enjoy. Whereas if a being with limitless power and knowledge existed it could could easily eradicate all suffering, and it's axiomatic that a benevolent being would do just this. I find it absurdly contradictory to suggest a benevolent being of this type created a world with ubiquitous suffering. Nothing I have heard from any religions has offered any plausible explanation for this paradox, and certainly none that doesn;t require a large amount of assumption or faith.

You've not really responded to this:

Polyglide wrote:As we humans think, or as I think most people think, nothing comes about from nothing and all things will in the end be explainable no matter what.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD In this context that would beg the question of where your deity came from?

However, as I have said previously, our thinking is limited to human standards and just as we cannot comprehend the extent of the unniverse and beyond and just what is beyond if the universe is the be all etc; we cannot comprehend a different life form that is also far beyond our understanding.

Where that life form originated I know not, nor can offer any kind of rational explanation based on humn knowledge, that is the reason I cannot answer because our intelligence is limited.

What I can do is see all that is available to consider and in doing so can only come to the conclusion that there is an intelligence involved far beyond our present understanding.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, I agree that that is the million dollar question. However, as I have said previously, our thinking is limited to human standards and just as we cannot comprehend the extent of the unniverse and beyond and just what is beyond if the universe is the be all etc; we cannot comprehend a different life form that is also far beyond our understanding. Where that life form originated I know not, nor can offer any kind of rational explanation based on humn knowledge, that is the reason I cannot answer because our intelligence is limited. What I can do is see all that is available to consider and in doing so can only come to the conclusion that there is an intelligence involved far beyond our present understanding.

It's not a billion dollar question as there is no evidence for the existence of such a deity. It is merely an anologous comparison to show that you claiming nothing can come from nothing when trying to use argumentum ad ignorantiam to claim a deity must have created the universe, is then directly contradicted when you are asked to explain where such a deity came from

You're making to unevidenced and contradictory claims:

1. A universe can't come from nothing.2. A deity can come from nothing.

It's logical to say that either something can come from nothing, or it can't, since you can't properly evidence either claim then it's not evidence to simply make these claims. Besides we'd have to acknowledge the limitations of using the a word like nothing here as an absolute term, since we don't know that to be the case.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, I have never said a deity can come from nothing.

That is the whole question and as I have said our knowledge is limited to an extent that we cannot comprehend the how and why, we can only think in human terms and this in many people is very limited.

Then where did it come from? I have asked before.

As I've said before religions seem to have a lot of claims, but very few, if any, real answers.

Science searches for answers, whereas religion believes it has them all, yet as my thread title points out, it's science that sets about expanding our knowledge, and we can and have used that knowledge to treat and cure and even eradicate diseases. Whereas the best religion could have hoped for was that it's claims were proved right, which of course has not been the case.

The idea an omnipotent deity stood idly by for over 100000 years of human existence then stepped in 2 to 3 thousand years ago, approaching a mostly illiterate society of extremely superstitious peoples relating a narrative that has been proved erroneous on the most basic claims about how our solar system was formed, and even the order in which it was formed is simply incompatible with the idea that such a deity is benevolent and that it has created everything for us.

Dr, Shedlon, Religion and the people involved in Chritianity have given their lives to attending to the less privelliged in countless instances.

I disagree that the society of 2 to 3 thousand years ago were illiterate, neither you nor anyone else knows the extent of their abilities.

In fact throughout the world there are indications that they were anything but unintelligent.

There is no scientific evidence to disclaim the origin of the universe, at the present time there are opposing theories, ie; pools of water and lightening etc, animo acids etc; little creatures in the sea being the latest not fogetting the Big Bang theory.

This proves the sientists are as much in the dark as they have evr been.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon, Religion and the people involved in Chritianity have given their lives to attending to the less privelliged in countless instances.

I disagree that the society of 2 to 3 thousand years ago were illiterate, neither you nor anyone else knows the extent of their abilities.

In fact throughout the world there are indications that they were anything but unintelligent.

There is no scientific evidence to disclaim the origin of the universe, at the present time there are opposing theories, ie; pools of water and lightening etc, animo acids etc; little creatures in the sea being the latest not fogetting the Big Bang theory.

This proves the sientists are as much in the dark as they have evr been.

None of which of course disproves that God created everything.

Science doesn't need to disprove creationism any more than it needs to disprove the existence of mermaids, for obvious reasons. It's for those who claim a deity created everything to prove their claim.

You still haven't said where your deity came from? I have asked several times.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon, Religion and the people involved in Chritianity have given their lives to attending to the less privelliged in countless instances. I disagree that the society of 2 to 3 thousand years ago were illiterate, neither you nor anyone else knows the extent of their abilities. In fact throughout the world there are indications that they were anything but unintelligent. There is no scientific evidence to disclaim the origin of the universe, at the present time there are opposing theories, ie; pools of water and lightening etc, animo acids etc; little creatures in the sea being the latest not fogetting the Big Bang theory. This proves the sientists are as much in the dark as they have evr been. None of which of course disproves that God created everything.

My point was that a deity that is claimed to be benevolent and have limitless power stood idly by, I made no claims about Christians per se, but plenty of them have also committed murder, genocide, rapine, and many other of the most appalling crimes motivated by their beliefs, so I'm not sure what point you're making here. Perhaps you need to reread my post as you seem to have misunderstood my point.

I never said people were unintelligent in ancient societies, people were largely illiterate though, because they had no means to be otherwise as there was no way to get any sort of education. Mass literacy is a very recent achievement, and again we have scientific advancements to thank for this.

Dr, Sheldon, They were so illeterate that we cannot understand some of the writings of the time.

If you raise your children in a proper manner, give them firm and honest guidance for their well being and they then commit all the horrific things you mention, whose fault is it?,. You miss the whole point regarding free will.

How can an omnipotent give free will and then compromise it?. It would make God a liar.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, They were so illeterate that we cannot understand some of the writings of the time.

This is not what I said at all, illiterate people by definition don't write. The point I was making is that the idea that an omniscient deity created everything with us in mind, then stood idly by for 100000 years only to suddenly appear in ancient Palestine among people who were by any standards superstitious, illiterate, and largely ignorant of the world is an absurd idea. Then when the message from this omniscient, far from being evidence of it's limitless knowledge actually reflects precisely the ignorances and superstitions of the era then it's quite obvious the erroneous narratives are entirely human in origin.

Polyglide wrote:If you raise your children in a proper manner, give them firm and honest guidance for their well being and they then commit all the horrific things you mention, whose fault is it?,

Human parents are neither omniscient nor omnipotent, and you've been told this enough times now to see the inadequacy of parent analogies in place of such a being. If a being that has limitless power and knowledge fails to communicate a message clearly and correctly then it alone is culpable.

Polyglide wrote:You miss the whole point regarding free will.

No I don't miss this at all, it's just not credible for several reasons. Firstly by definition an omnipotent being could keep free will in place and do anything else it chose, secondly this is just a desperate rationalisation that isn't supported by any real evidence.

Polyglide wrote:How can an omnipotent give free will and then compromise it?. It would make God a liar.

Why would it need to compromise it? An omnipotent being, if it existed, could do anything without compromising free will. A benevolent being would not by definition allow suffering.

I'll quote Epicurus again:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, We just go round in circles. You say the same thing, I give a complete answer and you come back with the same nonsense.

You haven't given a cogent answer to anything since I've been here, let alone a complete one, and this is a bit rich considering you ignore the bulk of my substantive posts and simply repeat ad naseam your decelerations of faith like a mantra. As for nonsense well there I'll happily defer to your expertise.

Polyglide wrote:God could prevent anything. do you understand that.

YES, DO YOU? You see here is your latest post suggesting there is something God can't do, and you've done this multiple times.

by polyglide on Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:27 pm How can an omnipotent give free will and then compromise it?

YOU SEE YOU'VE CLAIMED YOUR GOD CAN'T END SUFFERING WITHOUT COMPROMISING FREE WILL. **** can't do it**** your claim, geddit? Someone please help him out ffs...

I have never ever suggested there is anything an omnipotent being can't do, and have asked you several times to show a post of mine, just one, that does so. Of course as usual you ignore my request and just repeat the same stupid lie.

Polyglide wrote:God is not alone and has to consider the options in the domain in which he resides, just as humans have to do in their domain. God could have forced mankind to do his will but gave him free will to decide, otherwise mankind would be robots.

So you're saying God couldn't end suffering and devil and preserve free will, and keep his bargain with Satan, all at the same time? That's odd after your pompous opener claiming the opposite, Seriously go away and think about Epicurus's quote as it's as clear as ever you don't understand what's being discussed here.

Polyglide wrote:Mankind invented evil not God and through choice backed by the ever present Satan, if you do not believe in Satan then I can understand your lack of appreciation of the actual situation.

Another unevidenced claims is cut by Hicthen's razor and binned. Though of course it must be obvious that since God can do anything, as you shouted in your opening sentences then God is allowing this out of choice, so would not be benevolent.

Polyglide wrote: This does not give credence to the actual questions it is curious that Epicurus does not actually understand the implications of the questions.

What's curious is that there is no human genius you won't cite as lacking understanding in order to chase your tail trying to solve a puzzle that has but one answer that you unfortunately won't entertain no matter how obvious it is.

If God can stop evil but won't then he's not benevolent, if he can't then he's not omnipotent. The rest is a blend of semantics and Satanic myths. Which an omnipotent being would still be able to control, any way it chose and still end suffering. It's a shame you can't understand the definition of omnipotence and how you're denying it in the same post you make the claims for your god possessing it, but hey ho, I really have little hope you'll ever understand this paradox.

If that is a question it should have question mark (?) at the end, and if that is the case why do YOU go on to say this:

Polyglide wrote:God has to consider the options in the domain in which he resides

Has to? If he can do anything then he doesn't have to anything does he? That's axiomatic, but you don't seem to understand that you're contradicting yourself no matter how many times you do this, or how many times it's explained to you. If your previous posts are an indication you'll now alternate to this being done out of choice without understanding that this negates the possibility of such a being being benevolent. This in a nutshell is why we're going around in circles, because you can't see that you're contradicting yourself continuously.

And again here:

Polyglide wrote:God could have forced mankind to do his will but gave him free will to decide, otherwise mankind would be robots.

So first you claim he can do anything now you claim if doesn't do it a particular way we'd be robots? That clearly indicates you're claiming there is something he can't do, just why you can't see this is beyond me. I might understand if you were using clever semantics, but as I keep telling you, you're just alternating between mutually exclusive claims with no grasp of what's being said by me or it appears by you.

If as you claim go can do anything, why can't he stop suffering, and still keep free will and your Satanic deal? And of course if he can as YOU claim do all that, why hasn't he? Or paradoxically if he can't do all of that which you've also implied is the case then how is that omnipotence?

It's ll right there is Epicurus's quote, and he certainly did understand this paradox, very well, which is more than this discourse indicates you do I'm afraid.

Dr, Sheldon, I have no idea which school you attended to learn the meaning and different usage of words but I am glad I avoided it.

Can you read with any understanding? I doubt it.

Just get someone to explain the following:-

God is able to do anything.

Stop suffering, cause suffering, take life, give life or anything else is within his capabilities. Can you digest that?.

The prersent situation is this:-

God is not causing any of the problems on earth, suffering or anything else.

Satan is using every method in his power to turn everyone against God, man against man, different religions and all manner of different problems.

Of coarse God could and will stop Satan and all the suffering once Satan has had his chance.

As I have explained previously but obviously it is beyond you to understand, if God does not allow Satan to do all he can to turn mankind against God other than threaten killing them all, God would have broken his agreement.

Why God made the agreement is another matter and in no way changes the facts that God is everything a Chrisitian claims him to be.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, I have no idea which school you attended to learn the meaning and different usage of words but I am glad I avoided it.

Me too, though it's a shame you couldn't find at least one to attend. Now I am done warning you about your childish ad hominem from now on you get it back.

Polyglide wrote:Can you read with any understanding? I doubt it. Just get someone to explain the following:- God is able to do anything. Stop suffering, cause suffering, take life, give life or anything else is within his capabilities. Can you digest that?.

I've never said otherwise abut a hypothetically omnipotent being, you have though several times, but unfortunately you're unable to understand what you've written.

Polyglide wrote: As I have explained previously but obviously it is beyond you to understand, if God does not allow Satan to do all he can to turn mankind against God other than threaten killing them all, God would have broken his agreement.

So you're saying that God allows suffering out of choice then, and is not therefore benevolent? You see, post after post claiming he isn't allowing it out of choice, then when it's pointed out this would not be benevolent post after post claiming he can do anything, as we see here again.

Now which is it, is he allowing it out of choice and not benevolent, or is he not able to stop it and not omnipotent? You are trying to simultaneously claim both, and that's the paradox in the argument from evil. If you can ever grasp this maybe you'll see that you're just alternating between two mutually exclusive claims, but I have little hope that you'll ever understand it.

polyglide wrote:If a human decided to torture another human and God stopped him/her from doing so then free will have would have been compromised.

So YOU ARE SAYING NOW God couldn't stop such an act without compromising human free will? So you're now saying there is in fact something your omnipotent God can't do? That's odd because just two posts back you said:

by polyglide on Mon Jul 06, 2015 4:00 pmDr, Sheldon, God is able to do anything.

polyglide wrote:If a human decided to torture another human and God stopped him/her from doing so then free will have would have been compromised.

So YOU ARE SAYING NOW God couldn't stop such an act without compromising human free will? So you're now saying there is in fact something your omnipotent God can't do? That's odd because just two posts back you said:

by polyglide on Mon Jul 06, 2015 4:00 pmDr, Sheldon, God is able to do anything.

Which is it?

Can your god do anything, or can he not stop a human torturing another without compromising it's free will? He's only omnipotent if it's the first, and then he's not benevolent as he hasn't done this. Is it sinking in at all?

Dr, Sheldon, I just wish someone would explain plain English to you and talk about sink in, you are beyond belief, you cannot understand the fact that to compromise in any way the wishes of anyone given free will those involved no longer have free will.

At the present time, which I have pointed out several times, God is not running earthy matters, based on my belief as told in Matthew's accounts, so all the facts you refer to have nothing to do with God, other than to interfere when the life of the Christian faith is challenged by force.

Your whole stance is based on God having anything to do with matters on earth and that is not what I believe, so your whole attitude as far as I am concerned is groundless and your lack of understanding dismal.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, you cannot understand the fact that to compromise in any way the wishes of anyone given free will those involved no longer have free will.

Yes I can, but you said your deity can do "LITERALLY ANYTHING" as it is omnipotent, and even someone with a remedial grasp of English would know what this would mean. As I pointed out this is not the case if you're claiming your deity can't stop someone doing something and still preserve free will.

It would be fairly stupid to claim that a being existed that could do literally anything, then immediately point to something it couldn't do, as you are doing here, and not see the contradiction. Though amazingly you've done just this, and you've done it repeatedly throughout this discourse, and even more amazingly can't see it no matter how many times I point it out in plain simple terms. Is this deliberate?

Polyglide wrote:At the present time, which I have pointed out several times, God is not running earthy matters,

And as I've pointed out if your claim that your deity can literally do anything, as you claim it is omnipotent, then this can only be through choice.

>If it's through choice then he's not benevolent.>If it's not through choice then he's not omnipotent.

Dr Venter and his colleagues hope eventually to design and build new bacteria that will perform useful functions."I think they're going to potentially create a new industrial revolution," he said."If we can really get cells to do the production that we want, they could help wean us off oil and reverse some of the damage to the environment by capturing carbon dioxide."

Dr Venter and his colleagues are already collaborating with pharmaceutical and fuel companies to design and develop chromosomes for bacteria that would produce useful fuels and new vaccines.

Now I may be wrong, but Polyglide's much repeated, but entirely unevidenced, claim that "science can only examine what God has created" is utterly refuted by this, isn't it?

Ethical decisions are inevitable whenever we advance our collective knowledge of course but this again seems to evidence the potential benevolence of science. It also of course starkly shows how science could alleviate suffering and save lives that would otherwise continue to suffer and die in a supposed "design" purportedly created by an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent deity.

"Most people are in agreement that there is a slight increase in the potential for harm. But there's an exponential increase in the potential benefit to society," he told BBC's Newsnight."The flu vaccine you'll get next year could be developed by these processes," he added.

Last edited by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Mon Jul 13, 2015 1:36 pm; edited 1 time in total

The genome used was entirely synthetic. Read the article, you claimed all scientists did was examine what God had created, a risible enough claim given you provided no evidence beyond your own hubris, but unless you're claiming your deity created that synthetic genome and scientists have lied, then your claim had just been dismantled by this scientific research.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, The synthetic genome was not and is not a living thing.

That's precisely my point ffs. Jesus wept it's like trying to train a chimpanzee to use a toilet.

You claimed scientists only examined what God had created. Now leaving aside that you can't and don't even attempt to evidence this risible claim, the research in that article utterly refutes the claim as a living cell has its DNA created by a synthetic genome created by scientists.

Hells bells I've worked abroad with people where we shared only a few commonly understood words and not had to explain as much as I have this very simple refutation of your claim.

As I said, did your deity create the artificial genome? If not then your claim is dismantled.

That's not what you said. You said scientists only studied what god had created. Yet scientists created an entirely synthetic genome.

It's fairly simple and again I've no idea why you're unable to grasp this. Though your childish histrionics above suggest you're simply having another tantrum because you know your claim has been proved false.

Dr, Sheldon, The scientists only used that which already existed and the method used would not be of a natural origin but based on a complicated method that would be outside anyone, with common sense, to believe could come about by chance.